On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote: The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.
What would they stand to gain ? Is the FBI known for being a liberal entity ? Comey was appointed by Bush and a republican. McCabe was a registered republican. Rosenstein is a republican. Mueller is a republican.
Don't you think the investigation would have ended if it was a derangement syndrome from liberals or deep state ? Why was a SC even appointed in that case...
Imagine for a moment that these stories are true. If nothing had been done.... ?
It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.
Again, please imagine for a second that these allegations end up being true. Do you think the FBI doing nothing wouldn't be worse ? "Oh hey, we have clues that the candidate/president is being led by a foreign power ? Whatever, just don't do anything, it's fine." What would you have them do ?
I don't mind the FBI looking into it. But if they're going to do it, they must do it by the book. They clearly did not do it by the book.
As if the US intelligence agencies were doing things by the book all the time... This doesn't mean it's a deep state or a partisan agency. They have been borderline (or even completely) illegal for as long as they have existed. As do French ones.
Frankly, I don't really care about the full extent of the motive, whatever it was (and it is undeniable that there was huge anti-Trump bias by the actors in question at the FBI and CIA). What matters is that people in power are abusing their power.
The one thing that I'll add here is that I am interested in why the fingerprints of UK intelligence services are all over this mess.
The UK and US intelligence (and to a lesser extent, Israeli) intelligence services have been deeply intertwined from a long, long time ago. In 2016 the brexit referendum had not yet come to pass (and the general election afterwards), so both agencies were still (and are probably been, at the agents level) like-minded. Again, this could either feed into your "all establishments everywhere hate Trump", or the narrative that there was real cause to concern, depending on one's leanings.
I get that US and UK intelligence agencies work closely together. But why would the UK intelligence agency be so involved in an American presidential candidate and his campaign people? If Trump is a Russian operative, then yeah, I get it. But if he's not, WTF?
On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote: The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.
What would they stand to gain ? Is the FBI known for being a liberal entity ? Comey was appointed by Bush and a republican. McCabe was a registered republican. Rosenstein is a republican. Mueller is a republican.
Don't you think the investigation would have ended if it was a derangement syndrome from liberals or deep state ? Why was a SC even appointed in that case...
Imagine for a moment that these stories are true. If nothing had been done.... ?
It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.
I'm just curious if you consider when the FBI was illegally spying on Black citizens while arresting and assassinating them the Deep state or just the rank and file FBI?
On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote: The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.
What would they stand to gain ? Is the FBI known for being a liberal entity ? Comey was appointed by Bush and a republican. McCabe was a registered republican. Rosenstein is a republican. Mueller is a republican.
Don't you think the investigation would have ended if it was a derangement syndrome from liberals or deep state ? Why was a SC even appointed in that case...
Imagine for a moment that these stories are true. If nothing had been done.... ?
It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.
I'm just curious if you consider when the FBI was illegally spying on Black citizens while arresting and assassinating them the Deep state or just the rank and file FBI?
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
You still seem to take Fusion GPS and Uranium 1 seriously despite them being thoroughly shattered, so I don't know why it interests you so.
Neither has been seriously investigated, so I'm not sure why you think they are debunked.
On January 15 2019 03:34 xDaunt wrote: The cognitive bias explanation does not work for the FBI. There's too much malfeasance that's already known.
What would they stand to gain ? Is the FBI known for being a liberal entity ? Comey was appointed by Bush and a republican. McCabe was a registered republican. Rosenstein is a republican. Mueller is a republican.
Don't you think the investigation would have ended if it was a derangement syndrome from liberals or deep state ? Why was a SC even appointed in that case...
Imagine for a moment that these stories are true. If nothing had been done.... ?
It's not about liberal vs. conservative or democrat vs republican. It's about the deep state vs. everyone else. What's becoming increasingly clear is that government tools were used to spy on Trump's campaign (the outsider) during the course of the campaign for the purpose of harming his campaign and ensuring that an outsider like him did not take control of the executive branch so as to discover what has really been going on, particularly during the Obama administration.
I'm just curious if you consider when the FBI was illegally spying on Black citizens while arresting and assassinating them the Deep state or just the rank and file FBI?
Liberal vs Conservative, D v R? or what?
How about Henry Wallace xDaunt?
I'm not familiar enough to comment.
Perhaps you're just waking up to a phenomena that never went away then.
On January 15 2019 02:00 Danglars wrote: The only interesting part is you supposedly said "the only thing this achieves, is increasing the level of scrutiny on him, and his headaches" with a straight face.
The gist is that the administration already has a special counsel investigation, and someone still thinks executive privilege must yield to the millionth time a political hack has said "this gives the appearance you have things to hide."
You don't think pointing out that xDaunt's views on Russia/Ukraine/Manafort being the opposite of reality is worse noting ?
About Trump, again, when you take e.v.e.r.y s.t.e.p possible to give this appearance when very simple and sensible measures would help clear it, and you take steps to hinder discovery of that special counsel investigations, conclusions are easy to reach. Would it be so hard for him to just not talk to Putin, or release records to his OWN FUCKING ADMINISTRATION, full of exceptional guys, because he only chooses the best ? The result is his whole presidency, innocent or guilty, will be defined by that special counsel, where if he had vetted his campaign, or even just did not defend his convicted helpers, he would have cleared himself a bit. Every decision he takes about this investigation is the worst possible, every step along the way. For himself, first, but for the country, even worse.
Executive Privilege as I understand it is the power to not reveal to other branches of government, internal dealings to your own administration, to be able to receive candid advice. I haven't seen it asserted when dealing with a foreign power. It is not a blanket defense meaning the president can do whatever he wants, even if it puts the country in jeopardy. This interpretation you are taking has never been tested, since no president has ever been suspected of that. So we are in an interesting situation, extraordinary, and making sure there are no records *at all* is not reserving the right to use EP, it's plainly hiding informations and is detrimental to the US.
I don't understand how all these little things added one after the other, are not raising flags. I get that you support Trump and his policies, but the behaviour shown is extremely suspect. Even the body language of the self-described alpha male being unusually deferent when dealing with Putin is out of this world.
With every word you say, it's more and more obvious that your verdict is in. You want to rewind the tape and pretend you'd be influenced in favor of Trump if only Trump did this or that or this other thing. That's impossible. You've demonstrated that there is no remedy for him in your eyes. His best move is to give nothing to people that will end of believing whatever they believed in the first place. You're just showing poor judgement hoping others will miss the whole "poor judgement" part and seek to persuade you to judge differently.
He's the president. He can negotiate with foreign powers without fear of his every proposal and counter-proposal being revealed to the public in hopes of hurting ongoing negotiations or making good diplomatic deals impossible. You're really holding up an impossible standard and hoping for cheers. Someone will always think a president is shady and can't be trusted dealing with XXXX foreign power. He should ignore people that think private negotiations increase the shady prejudgment they originally made of him. He's not some teenager that is guilty until proven innocent, and must surrender the rights of office to court your good opinion.
I don't know what you can possibly think about how the US negotiates with foreign powers. Imagine you support Obama's cash for nuclear delay tactic, but some yahoo doesn't trust Obama and Obama must release the news "Obama promises to send billions to state sponsor of terrorism." Try persuading the American people you think it's enough to get something good from Iran in return before they've agreed to do it. It's all bullshit. That's no way to govern foreign policy, regardless of your feelings on Trump.
On January 15 2019 02:48 Danglars wrote: Jonathan Turley had a kind of third-way take on all of this:
Cognitive bias explains a lot for the conspiracy. I'm still leaning towards actual bad actors using Russia to wage a war against the Trump administration from within the bureaucracy and mainstream media, with mixed effectiveness. Short of all that ill intent, this explanation also fits. A large amount of people see anger against the moles within the administration and war against the deep state as just further proof that Trump is actively conspiring with Putin, and react in kind. This prompts more backlash from Trump against the insinuations, which further confirms that he actually is Putin's stooge.
Did they need to actually write that down for people to understand that ? I mean it looks obvious this is the case. The follow up is what I'm questioning.
This was Trump's job to fix. Being innocent, he could have taken steps to defuse the situation. But playing to his base and having dems oppose reps, feeds into his deep state and "conspiracy against him" narrative. Plus I question him being able to control what he says... So he completely blew it open, and hamstrung himself, hindering his presidency in the process.
Nope. He went in against an entrenched bureaucracy that hated his guts, because he campaigned on undoing their regulation and knocking the elites/experts down a notch. You may not like his campaign promises, but that's no reason to say he must go back on his word upon election because it's his "job to fix."
You're better off diverting to things it's actually his job to fix, like his messaging through twitter to become more effective advancing the wall, exposing corrupt government agencies, appointing judges, and the rest.
My verdict is that I hate his policies, but I am not criticizing them here. I hate the guy, but I do not KNOW if he is guilty or not. Thus, I am reserving my judgment. However, I like to look at all sides before having an opinion. This is why I'm reading here, and T_D, and Fox, and other sources. I also like to think about "what if?" (on both sides). I sincerely hope DT himself is innocent of collusion, as I believe we need a strong US to keep peace across the world (which is currently, along with having a world at all, my only interest in following US politics since I'm working in Defense).
There have been a number of indictments. There have been a number of facts laid out for us to see. The most recent ones from Manafort are from his own side, and they are not fighting it, so I can take those for what they are. I am using these facts (and others) to put in perspective behaviours, words, attitudes and other elements.
I would indeed be more favorable to Trump he if he took steps that I would consider sensible to help his country and not his own guts. I am doing that on a number of world leaders, mine, Erdogan, Putin, and others. All of these guys have qualities, and defects, and I try to look at them rationally. So why wouldn't I be able to manage it for DT ? Maybe because he is not rational, and I do not like a world leader (THE world leader currently) being a slave to his temper. That's not what I want to see from a leader. His policies are something else. But since he is unable to control himself in public, looking at his behaviour gives me hints on what he actually is.
What I am asking in these last two pages is to put yourself in the shoes of the "other side", with this collusion story being true and try to think from that point of view, and examine DT's behaviour again. And then tell me what you wanted the "establishment" to do. What would you have wanted them to do in another way, and how ? Or what could Trump have done to make things better (for him) and why he didn't take those steps ?
I hate elites and experts. However I would not want to see idiots and novices taking decisions affecting the world, without listening to past insight and experience. We are supposed to learn from mistakes, and not repeat them all over again because fuck experts. It's a necessary evil (look at Venezuela when non-experts run a country)
I hate lobbies even more, as money should not be the only item of interest on the planet. (that's why I loathe most of Trump's picks for cabinet)
You already know my opinion on what you’ve said and why I think it’s antithetical to reserving judgment, so I won’t renew that here. I also read lefty rags like the NYT, WaPo and center left WSJ, as well as politico, the hill, and this websites politics threads to know why the other side thinks what they do, as well as read between the lines.
I think the indictments are valuable to form conclusions from. I certainly conclude that Trump doesn’t hire the best people. He’s a poor judge of character, even in his fixer, and rewards flattery and shows of loyalty.
Now, Trump is pretty transparently fond of the self-image of big, powerful CEOs signing genius deals and ascending the presidency just because people said he couldn’t do it. He’s consequently very happy with authoritarians and people that pay him compliments. Putin cheers him as a tough guy, and Trump rewards him with some fawning comments. Same thing with Kim Jong Un. The pettiness and loyalty parts of Trump are abundantly apparent.
I’ve taken the Occam’s Razor side of “if it’s clearly something an arrogant narcissist would do, take that as the default, until overwhelming evidence points otherwise.” Putin pretty obviously pleased Trump with authoritarian camaraderie and compliments, and Trump reciprocated in over the top manner. That still feels as obvious a conclusion as you’ll ever get in politics. The elaborate constructions of conspiracies and linking dumb campaign moves to a thin storyline has always faltered under examination.
I keep the Mueller investigation open as the possibility that there was something more sinister in the election than Russia preferring American chaos to order. He’s got his budget and tons of investigators to see if there was collaboration. I think anything massive would’ve leaked by now. But maybe there’s something and we’ll find out. Until then, nothing really to see here.
The culpability of the Hillary campaign and Fusion GPS in turning the department of justice into a political campaign operation has much more force and evidence. It ties into the Veselnitskaya angle (met with fusion gps before and after offering dirt to Trump). As stated in the article, it gives ample explanation for Trumps actions (his campaign was spied on by the former administration even as he said they were corrupt and insular). It’s still like pulling teeth to uncover the documents relating to FBI malfeasance. They still claim national security and compromised inter-country intel relations to conceal the dumbest examples of bonehead decisions. I hope Trump’s new DoJ appointee takes an internal investigation seriously. It’s very important to unravel the Comey-McCabe-Strzok actions and DoJ stonewalling if the FBI is ever to be trusted again with the power it wields. It’s right up there with the Mueller investigation for the country moving forward from one (or two) presidential terms. I’m saddened to see partisanship and stupidity hampering the effort.
I don’t really see your opinion on elites and experts as bearing much fruit rationally. You’ll always end up with “i don’t like them, but these guys are so much worse” type of errors in favor of the status quo (and out of fear too). I see a little transitionary period of chaos as the only route from blind trust in institutions (that proved unfounded) and a new political class that respects accountability and the rule of law. We don’t have Venezuela’s history and lack of safeguards to make the chaos permanent, nor their revolution to fully overthrow the current governmental system. Against elites, we can’t even get Congressional oversight by means of department budgets because those have turned into political “fund it all at once with yearly percentage increases or shutdown” boondoggles. If your department is badly run and you don’t comply with congressional subpoenas and investigations, your funding should be held up or reduced in a bill just funding your department, not the entire government. It’s as simple as that. I’m done with functionaries and deputies lying their ass off about surveillance and accountability and systems of checks and balances before congressional committees, and doing the exact opposite after the affair.
The New York Times has published another bombshell with a story that President Trump was named as a possible national security threat in a counterintelligence operation that was launched after his inauguration.
If true, this is likely the only time in history that the FBI has investigated whether a sitting president was either a knowing or unknowing agent of a foreign power. However, the real benefit of the investigative story may not be the original suspicion, but rather how it could explain the course that both sides have taken into our current quagmire. What if there were no collusion or conspiracy but simple cognitive bias on both sides, where the actions of one seemed to confirm precisely the suspicions of the other?
There are now two possibilities. The first of those is that Trump really was some “manchurian candidate” placed in the Oval Office by Russia and controlled from afar by Vladimir Putin. Many are unlikely to ever accept any other possibility, though the New York Times story does not suggest that this counterintelligence operation found any basis for the original allegation. Indeed, the problem arose when part of the operation was made public. Such inquiries are usually completed and never disclosed. In this case, various forces led to a partial disclosure that Trump associates were investigated and that Trump himself might have been compromised.
Now to the more intriguing theory that is more consistent with known facts. We have a clear picture of what the two sides saw at the start of the Trump administration. At the FBI, investigators, including then director James Comey, actively considered the unthinkable possibility that the president was controlled by Russia. At the White House, Trump believed that his associates and campaign had been placed under investigation by federal officials with close ties to Democratic figures. What happened next could be a lesson in cognitive bias, and it could indeed explain a lot.
At the start of the Trump administration, the FBI has a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele and opposition research firm Fusion GPS, alleging a myriad of suspicious financial and personal connections between Trump and Russia. It also had an investigation into the Russia connections of Trump adviser Carter Page. There was Trump encouraging Russia to locate the hacked emails of Hillary Clinton and some evidence of Russia internet trolling and hacking operations. There also was the curious refusal of Trump to criticize Russia, an anomaly within Republican politics.
Soon after the inauguration, Trump started to counterpunch against what he saw as a deep state conspiracy. He asked Comey if he would be loyal and to go easy on resigned national security adviser Michael Flynn. He eventually fired Comey. He lashed out on social media against the FBI. He said in an interview that he had the Russia investigation in mind when he fired Comey. He met with Russians the very next day in the Oval Office and told the diplomats, “I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That is taken of.”
No charges were ever brought against Page, who appears to have been pursuing business interests in Russia. Moreover, investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, who broke the dossier story, admitted recently, “When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, we have not seen the evidence to support them, and, in fact, there is good grounds to think that some of the more sensational allegations will never be proven and are likely false.” Even the New York Times bombshell now reports that “no evidence has emerged publicly that Trump was “secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials.”
However, the FBI back then did not know all of that. From the perspective of the counterintelligence operation, every one of those moves confirmed the concern that Trump may have been working for Russian interests. They understandably began an investigation into whether Trump was acting not erratically but by design to conceal his Russian influence.
Now go back to the same period after the inauguration. Trump had just won an unwinnable election against the establishment. He had expected much of the government to be hostile to his administration. He soon learned that the FBI secretly investigated some of his aides. Then the dossier story hit. The Clinton campaign first denied funding the dossier but later admitted that it funded the effort at a considerable expense, with the money hidden as legal costs by its lawyer and his firm.
From the perspective of Trump, it all fit pattern of a deep state conspiracy of Clinton operatives and establishment officials. Soon, Trump witnessed events that confirmed his suspicions. Key FBI officials like Andrew McCabe had Democratic connections and his wife, Jill McCabe, received roughly $700,000 from a close Clinton ally and the Virginia Democratic Party in her campaign for the state legislature. Then emails surfaced, showing sentiments of clear bias against Trump from relevant figures like McCabe and lead FBI investigator Peter Strzok, including discussion of “insurance policies” against his election and resistance against his administration.
Trump also learned that the dossier was given to the FBI by the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who worked closely with former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates. Nellie Ohr was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Everything that Trump was seeing confirmed the theory of a conspiracy of Democratic operatives and deep state figures against his administration.
The result is two separate narratives that fed off the actions of each other. There likely was bias in the initial assumptions, with a willingness at the FBI to believe Trump would be a tool of the Russians, and a willingness by Trump to believe the FBI would be a tool of the Clintons. Every move and countermove confirmed each bias. Trump continued to denounce what he saw as a conspiracy. The FBI continued to investigate his obstructive attitude. One side saw a witch hunt where the other saw a mole hunt.
Of course, neither side can accept at this point that they may have been wrong about the other side. In economics that is called path dependence. So much has been built on the Republican and Democratic sides on these original assumptions that it is impossible to now deconstruct from those narratives. In other words, there may have been no Russian mole and no deep state conspiracy. Moreover, the motivations may not have been to obstruct either the Trump administration or the Russia investigation. Instead, this could all prove to be the greatest, most costly example of cognitive bias in history, and now no one in this story wants to admit it.
Cognitive bias explains a lot for the conspiracy. I'm still leaning towards actual bad actors using Russia to wage a war against the Trump administration from within the bureaucracy and mainstream media, with mixed effectiveness. Short of all that ill intent, this explanation also fits. A large amount of people see anger against the moles within the administration and war against the deep state as just further proof that Trump is actively conspiring with Putin, and react in kind. This prompts more backlash from Trump against the insinuations, which further confirms that he actually is Putin's stooge.
Trey Gowdy, presidential oversight warrior, disagrees with your interpretation, and he is one of the few people who has seen the evidence.
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
The actual trigger for the investigation was not Comey being fired but trump explaining that the Russia investigation was his basis for firing him. This included chumming with the Russian ambassador and foreign minister in the oval office thr day after firing Comey, and telling them that "there was great pressure from the Russia investigation, and that's now off." For you to not be concerned about that is pure political bias.
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
The good old Friday news dump. That article is the smoking gun for the FBI. They didn’t have any evidence that Trump was working for the Russians. They opened a counterintelligence probe anyways because of disagreements in foreign policy, the lawful firing of Comey, and revealing that he wasn’t under investigation to Americans. I thought the game plan was to stonewall and hope the investigations and FOIA just die down.
For them to just up and admit (to a friendly news office) they were running on jack squat is breathtaking. Rewind the tape a year, and you’ll see stories on the mere fact that an investigation was underway as proof that it wasn’t based on an unverified memo and that the FBI really had something. Now it’s so laughable. I suppose the FBI high-ranking officials figure distrust is now chill for starting FBI investigations. They do know the political left are now bedfellows with the intelligence community.
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
The good old Friday news dump. That article is the smoking gun for the FBI. They didn’t have any evidence that Trump was working for the Russians. They opened a counterintelligence probe anyways because of disagreements in foreign policy, the lawful firing of Comey, and revealing that he wasn’t under investigation to Americans. I thought the game plan was to stonewall and hope the investigations and FOIA just die down.
For them to just up and admit (to a friendly news office) they were running on jack squat is breathtaking. Rewind the tape a year, and you’ll see stories on the mere fact that an investigation was underway as proof that it wasn’t based on an unverified memo and that the FBI really had something. Now it’s so laughable. I suppose the FBI high-ranking officials figure distrust is now chill for starting FBI investigations. They do know the political left are now bedfellows with the intelligence community.
Again, this is their ex post facto explanation now. It's not going to hold up. It doesn't even begin to explain the investigations into Flynn, Page, Papadouplos, and Manafort or their reliance upon the Steele dossier, which is unequivocally about Trump. It certainly doesn't explain away the ample record of anti-Trump bias or the DOJ/FBI obstructing every lawful inquiry into what actually happened. Like I have said before, people are going to burn for this.
For everyone who was perplexed at what Democrats could do about Joe Manchin voting with Trump more than Democrats, what Republicans are (supposed) to do with Steve King, stripping him of power in the party, is exactly what I was talking about.
On January 15 2019 12:40 xDaunt wrote: I don't see the big deal with the McDonald's offering. The players probably appreciated it more than some fancy offering.
Have you never eaten cold McDonald's?
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me a bunch of athletes wanted some cold McDonald's over freshly prepared filet mignon, soft shell crab, lobster, etc...
I mean I'm sure they were fine avoiding some of the pomp but come on?
Hell, even some famous daves or some shit could have been fine, but McDonald's is like 10,000,000 times tackier (and gross AF) than a tan suit.
On January 15 2019 12:40 xDaunt wrote: I don't see the big deal with the McDonald's offering. The players probably appreciated it more than some fancy offering.
Have you never eaten cold McDonald's?
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me a bunch of athletes wanted some cold McDonald's over freshly prepared filet mignon, soft shell crab, lobster, etc...
I mean I'm sure they were fine avoiding some of the pomp but come on?
Hell, even some famous daves or some shit could have been fine, but McDonald's is like 10,000,000 times tackier than a tan suit.
Looked like it went well to me.
Plus there's an added optics benefit. Trump is daring liberal elites to shit all over the food that the average American enjoys.
As for the food itself, I'm not a huge fan of McDonald's, but I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't prefer to it a lot of the catered shit that I see at big parties.
On January 15 2019 12:40 xDaunt wrote: I don't see the big deal with the McDonald's offering. The players probably appreciated it more than some fancy offering.
Have you never eaten cold McDonald's?
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me a bunch of athletes wanted some cold McDonald's over freshly prepared filet mignon, soft shell crab, lobster, etc...
I mean I'm sure they were fine avoiding some of the pomp but come on?
Hell, even some famous daves or some shit could have been fine, but McDonald's is like 10,000,000 times tackier than a tan suit.
Plus there's an added optics benefit. Trump is daring liberal elites to shit all over the food that the average American enjoys.
As for the food itself, I'm not a huge fan of McDonald's, but I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't prefer to it a lot of the catered shit that I see at big parties.
I don't know what about that looks like it went well?
Even the people who have to eat McDonald's know it's trashy food. The only saving grace of it are the fries which everyone knows are garbage about 20 minutes after they leave the fryer.
That should be embarrassing as a world leader and not because it's "poor people food" or whatever. It's just pathetic.
every person who ever eats MCDonalds would have rather the president tossed a hot bag at them fresh through the door than dick around watching servants lighting golden candles and put it on silver platters. That's like if a 8 year old was in charge of the white house.
Pretty sure there was a movie with a reference like this
The hall has played guest to kings queens and dictators forced to pay tribute at the feet of the republic. He had cold fast food stacked up on silver platters next to solid gold candle holders so don't give me that "common person meal" shit for a second.
It's ignorant to players that have to eat food approved by nutritionists, its disrespectful to the nation and a slight on our imperial prestige built up by generations.
It's basically a perfect example of trumps presidency. The idea is to have regular person food but instead of having food that they grew up on and enjoyed their whole lives he has stacks of what's popular at a half dozen fast food stores brought in to get cold. All in service for a photo op that anyone with a sense of dignity or an ounce of respect for their heritage would find shameful.
He has reached a new low. This wasn't even a spontaneous decision for him. All his event people and chefs are furloughed because of the shutdown. This was the best he could come up with.
House Republican leaders have removed Steve King from the committees he served on. He's also been denounced and encouraged to find a new line of work by Republican Senators. That's encouraging. I hope the Iowa GOP can settle on a qualified candidate to beat him in a primary in 2020.
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
The good old Friday news dump. That article is the smoking gun for the FBI. They didn’t have any evidence that Trump was working for the Russians. They opened a counterintelligence probe anyways because of disagreements in foreign policy, the lawful firing of Comey, and revealing that he wasn’t under investigation to Americans. I thought the game plan was to stonewall and hope the investigations and FOIA just die down.
For them to just up and admit (to a friendly news office) they were running on jack squat is breathtaking. Rewind the tape a year, and you’ll see stories on the mere fact that an investigation was underway as proof that it wasn’t based on an unverified memo and that the FBI really had something. Now it’s so laughable. I suppose the FBI high-ranking officials figure distrust is now chill for starting FBI investigations. They do know the political left are now bedfellows with the intelligence community.
Again, this is their ex post facto explanation now. It's not going to hold up. It doesn't even begin to explain the investigations into Flynn, Page, Papadouplos, and Manafort or their reliance upon the Steele dossier, which is unequivocally about Trump. It certainly doesn't explain away the ample record of anti-Trump bias or the DOJ/FBI obstructing every lawful inquiry into what actually happened. Like I have said before, people are going to burn for this.
Andrew McCarthy brings a couple other pieces together for context:
That is why, for example, when director Comey briefed then-President-elect Trump about the Steele dossier, he told Trump only about the salacious allegation involving prostitutes in a Moscow hotel; he did not tell the president-elect either that the main thrust of the dossier was Trump’s purported espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin, nor that the FBI had gone to the FISC to get surveillance warrants based on the dossier. The FBI was telling the president-elect that the allegations were salacious and unverified, yet at that very moment they were presenting them to a federal court as information the judges could rely on to authorize spying.
Fox (The McCarthy also a columnist at National Review and formerly SDNY assistant attorney)
We already know that Comey testified under oath that the only portion of the dossier with which he briefed Trump was the pee-tape portion. The salacious and unverified one. The time period overlaps the FISA application based substantially (some would say entirely) on the dossier. Maybe the counterargument is that Comey is already known to be a scumbag, so there's no surprise that he's double-dealing here. I can't even imagine the fireworks if it was George Bush's administration that used McCain funded opposition research to investigate Obama, and then later lied to Obama saying he wasn't under investigation and the oppo was simply salacious bunk.
On January 15 2019 02:21 xDaunt wrote: I just find it interesting that anyone still takes the Russia collusion narrative seriously. It has been thoroughly shattered. Indeed, the desperation of the people who have been pushing it has become readily apparent has increasingly ridiculous stories have leaked to the press, such as the leak reported by McClatchy about Cohen's cell phone pinging a tower near Prague. Friday's NYT story claiming that the FBI counterintelligence investigation was opened after Trump fired Comey (and let's be crystal clear, that the FBI would dare do this in response to the lawful action of the President is outrageous) is also pure nonsense. We already know that the FBI was conducting the investigation during the campaign.
You still seem to take Fusion GPS and Uranium 1 seriously despite them being thoroughly shattered, so I don't know why it interests you so.
Neither has been seriously investigated, so I'm not sure why you think they are debunked.
And the Russia/collusion investigation is still ongoing so I'm not sure why you think that's debunked, either, but here we are.
Or do you think it is perhaps completely coincidental that you believe in the conspiracy theories that make the other side look bad while they believe in the conspiracy theories that make yours look bad?
Anyway, I thought the GOP had opened a full investigation into Uranium 1 last year?
On January 15 2019 12:40 xDaunt wrote: I don't see the big deal with the McDonald's offering. The players probably appreciated it more than some fancy offering.
Have you never eaten cold McDonald's?
How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're trying to tell me a bunch of athletes wanted some cold McDonald's over freshly prepared filet mignon, soft shell crab, lobster, etc...
I mean I'm sure they were fine avoiding some of the pomp but come on?
Hell, even some famous daves or some shit could have been fine, but McDonald's is like 10,000,000 times tackier than a tan suit.
Plus there's an added optics benefit. Trump is daring liberal elites to shit all over the food that the average American enjoys.
As for the food itself, I'm not a huge fan of McDonald's, but I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't prefer to it a lot of the catered shit that I see at big parties.
You're telling me the average American eats cold McDonalds? Wow. Your economy really must be doing bad if that's normal.
I appreciate that when it comes to Trump you must always be sunny-side-up, but come on. You telling me the average American is going to be complaining at these elites because, I dunno, the White House staff fresh cooked actual chips and burgers?
If you're going to serve chips and burgers at the White House... at least cook it fresh.
Or do you think that's too upmarket for the White House and the average American to appreciate?
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw6VV6bWwAADvUn.jpg)
